Oh boy, here goes: Can God's Existence be Proven or Disproven? (Precursor to writing Op Ed for USMB)

[emilynghiem]

I was considering writing an Op Ed for USMB, where instead of "preaching" about certain views, positions or solutions, I merely wanted to describe the ADVANTAGES I have in understanding the benefits of spiritual healing, mediation, and conflict resolution. Regardless what viewpoints or beliefs anyone many have, the factor of forgiveness or unforgiveness in relations is the key to resolving political or religious conflicts. Especially where beliefs are not going to change, it is critical to

One area where I'd like to prove the impact of the "forgiveness factor" is in resolving debates over religion, between theists and nontheists, Christians and nonchristians, by first agreeing on the process so a consensus can be reached. Again, REGARDLESS if people consider themselves believers or not -- how can we reach an AGREEMENT on the meaning of God, Jesus, and the Bible by forgiving differences and focusing on what is common.

That is the challenge I would like to take on. Meanwhile while looking for the best way to spell out this goal and process in a simple statement anyone can follow, I decided to do one quick search on the net for where the rest of the world is on the issue of God. Are people OK with the point there has neither been proof or disproof of either the existence or nonexistence of God -- and that all such terms are faith-based? It is not an issue of who believes one side or another. What I'd like to "prove" is the measurable difference in forgiving or not forgiving conflicts, and how this factor affects the PROCESS of reaching a common understanding that does not rely on changing anyone's views, but includes Atheists and Theists, Christians and Nonchristians alike.

I'm not sure I can spell that out easily. But in the meantime, here are links to how other people have spelled out their views on the subject of proving or disproving God's existence. (Again, my approach is to discuss the meanings and concepts attributed to God, and to reach agreement on those points instead of arguing over conflicting viewpoints.)

* Christian pastor offers atheists $100,000 to prove God doesn’t exist, atheist proves pastor is dumb



* Is There a God?
I don't quite follow these religious arguments that basically preach to the converted. When both sides do that, they merely reinforce their own beliefs and don't convince anyone but the audience that already agrees!

* A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) - Religion - Nigeria

* http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Galleries/7-Things-Atheists-Get-Wrong-About-God.aspx

Again, instead of nitpicking apart the beliefs of either Theists or Nontheists, and trying to dismantle their arguments by attacking the person or their motives,
what I would point out is the real determining factor in whether people reconcile or not between their diverging views is their ability to FORGIVE these differences and to work around them to INCLUDE each other equally.

So running around saying Atheists are wrong, or that Christians have some ulterior agenda,
is part of the problem keeping people divided. And the greatest revelation is understanding that neither side's views have to change in order to reach an agreement on what really matters -- on the universal principles and concepts underneath, that all people can relate to, regardless of political or religious viewpoint or affiliation.

The more forgiving and inclusive people are in their approach to conflict, the more readily they can see this.

I look forward to the day we can all see past our differences, in order to establish common truth we agree on.

The greatest irony I find in this whole issue of "proving" the existence of God or proving God can neither be proven or disproven, is that by the time we reach an agreement on the process, "proof" will no longer be necessary. Just to sort out where we agree and disagree, we will already have resolved the emotional and political conflicts preventing agreement in the first place on the points that really matter. And by the time we resolve those, we would find it isn't necessary to change to each other's views anyway. Most problems will be solved in the process.

By the time we reach a common understanding of each other's views and what we mean by various terms, we won't need proof, because we will already agree we are talking about the same concepts and principles anyway. But in the process, the value of the process itself, of learning and sharing, and building relationships along the way may well end up demonstrating that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the journey just as important as the destination. Whatever faith it takes in that process to reach a higher good or understanding of truth, that one equivalent of having faith in God. We don't have to call it the same thing to reach the same destination, regardless which path we take to get there.

 

[cnm]

What I can't understand is why you'd bother with the 'proof' of the existence of gods when you say it doesn't matter.

 

[midcan5]

"If I was dead, I wouldn’t know I was dead. That’s the only thing I have against death. I want to enjoy my death." Samuel Beckett

(Again, my approach is to discuss the meanings and concepts attributed to God, and to reach agreement on those points instead of arguing over conflicting viewpoints.)

Forget God for a moment, think of non existence. Or think of immortality. A billion years from now I've exhausted the afterlife and decide this is boring. I go to St Peter or a reasonable replacement, and I plead with him or her, I've had it, I enjoyed the first hundred thousand years but after that, I lost interest. Ah, she says, but you are immortal, no getting around that. Please, I beg you let me start over, nothing interests me any longer. Sorry reincarnation is not possible, remember your happiness on awaking here? Yes, I do, but that was long ago and I cannot even communicate with any living being? But you are living and we cannot give evidence for immortality as it would ruin the play, to use a theater term. Please, please....

"The discussion of the badness of death continues by asking whether it is bad that we do not exist before our birth."
Open Yale Courses | Death | Lecture 18 - The Badness of Death, Part III; Immortality, Part I

http://www.hartwick.edu/Documents/PHILOSWisnewskiImmortalLife.pdf

PS If the 40 arguments above don't give you pause, nothing will. lol

 

[amrchaos]

It as if you are looking for Universal agreement on a concept where there is no Universal agreement on.

Forget whether god exist or not--"What is god?" has a plurality of meaning to theist themselves!!

Better to outline your personal answers and talk from your viewpoint. Even with those that disagree with you, they may agree with your conclusion for different reasons.

 

[Flanders]

I was considering writing an Op Ed for USMB, where instead of "preaching" about certain views, positions or solutions, I merely wanted to describe the ADVANTAGES I have in understanding the benefits of spiritual healing, mediation, and conflict resolution. Regardless what viewpoints or beliefs anyone many have, the factor of forgiveness or unforgiveness in relations is the key to resolving political or religious conflicts. Especially where beliefs are not going to change, it is critical to

One area where I'd like to prove the impact of the "forgiveness factor" is in resolving debates over religion, between theists and nontheists, Christians and nonchristians, by first agreeing on the process so a consensus can be reached. Again, REGARDLESS if people consider themselves believers or not -- how can we reach an AGREEMENT on the meaning of God, Jesus, and the Bible by forgiving differences and focusing on what is common.

That is the challenge I would like to take on. Meanwhile while looking for the best way to spell out this goal and process in a simple statement anyone can follow, I decided to do one quick search on the net for where the rest of the world is on the issue of God. Are people OK with the point there has neither been proof or disproof of either the existence or nonexistence of God -- and that all such terms are faith-based? It is not an issue of who believes one side or another. What I'd like to "prove" is the measurable difference in forgiving or not forgiving conflicts, and how this factor affects the PROCESS of reaching a common understanding that does not rely on changing anyone's views, but includes Atheists and Theists, Christians and Nonchristians alike.

I'm not sure I can spell that out easily. But in the meantime, here are links to how other people have spelled out their views on the subject of proving or disproving God's existence. (Again, my approach is to discuss the meanings and concepts attributed to God, and to reach agreement on those points instead of arguing over conflicting viewpoints.)

* Christian pastor offers atheists $100,000 to prove God doesn’t exist, atheist proves pastor is dumb



* Is There a God?
I don't quite follow these religious arguments that basically preach to the converted. When both sides do that, they merely reinforce their own beliefs and don't convince anyone but the audience that already agrees!

* A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) - Religion - Nigeria

* 7 Things Atheists Get Wrong About God

Again, instead of nitpicking apart the beliefs of either Theists or Nontheists, and trying to dismantle their arguments by attacking the person or their motives,
what I would point out is the real determining factor in whether people reconcile or not between their diverging views is their ability to FORGIVE these differences and to work around them to INCLUDE each other equally.

So running around saying Atheists are wrong, or that Christians have some ulterior agenda,
is part of the problem keeping people divided. And the greatest revelation is understanding that neither side's views have to change in order to reach an agreement on what really matters -- on the universal principles and concepts underneath, that all people can relate to, regardless of political or religious viewpoint or affiliation.

The more forgiving and inclusive people are in their approach to conflict, the more readily they can see this.

I look forward to the day we can all see past our differences, in order to establish common truth we agree on.

The greatest irony I find in this whole issue of "proving" the existence of God or proving God can neither be proven or disproven, is that by the time we reach an agreement on the process, "proof" will no longer be necessary. Just to sort out where we agree and disagree, we will already have resolved the emotional and political conflicts preventing agreement in the first place on the points that really matter. And by the time we resolve those, we would find it isn't necessary to change to each other's views anyway. Most problems will be solved in the process.

By the time we reach a common understanding of each other's views and what we mean by various terms, we won't need proof, because we will already agree we are talking about the same concepts and principles anyway. But in the process, the value of the process itself, of learning and sharing, and building relationships along the way may well end up demonstrating that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, the journey just as important as the destination. Whatever faith it takes in that process to reach a higher good or understanding of truth, that one equivalent of having faith in God. We don't have to call it the same thing to reach the same destination, regardless which path we take to get there.

To emilynghiem: Interesting. Now try one separating God from organized religion.